Thames v. Davis Goulet Ins., Inc.

12 Citing cases

  1. Bus. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Banks

    91 So. 3d 1 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Non-competition covenants are not favored in the law, as they are considered restrictive contracts that restrain trade and individual freedom. Frierson v. Sheppard Building Supply, Co., 247 Miss. 157, 172, 154 So.2d 151, 156 (1963); Thames v. Davis & Goulet Ins., Inc., 420 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Miss.1982). The Mississippi Supreme Court has also recognized that there is a “valid and accepted distinction between covenants not to compete in an employer-employee setting, and those dealing with the sale of a business [.]”

  2. Business Communications v. Banks

    2009 CA 407 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)

    ¶ 68. Non-competition covenants are not favored in the law, as they are considered restrictive contracts that restrain trade and individual freedom. Frierson v. Sheppard Building Supply, Co., 247 Miss. 157, 172, 154 So. 2d 151, 156 (1963); Thames v. Davis Goulet Ins., Inc., 420 So. 2d 1041, 1043 (Miss. 1982). The Mississippi Supreme Court has also recognized that there is a "valid and accepted distinction between covenants not to compete in an employer-employee setting, and those dealing with the sale of a business[.

  3. Peavey Electronics Corporation v. Pinske

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10CV69TSL-LRA (S.D. Miss. Jun. 1, 2010)

    For the reasons that follow, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, or any of the other requisites for injunctive relief. In response to Peavey's motion, Pinske has argued that Peavey has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for a number of reasons, including that Peavey has not demonstrated the reasonableness, necessity and purpose of the covenant not to compete, see Thames v. Davis Goulet Ins., Inc., 420 So. 2d 1041, 1043 (Miss. 1982) (observing rule that ex-employer must demonstrate "the economic justification, the reasonableness of the restraint which is sought to be imposed," and holding that injunctive relief would not be ordered since ex-employer "did not plead in its complaint any special reason or necessity why the contract should be enforced" and "offered no proof whatever as to the reasonableness, necessity or purpose of the contractual prohibition" but "simply offered the contract and proof as to alleged violations"), and that Pinske's employment with Radian did not violate the covenant not to compete since Radian and Peavey are not competitors. Both positions have merit.

  4. Taylor v. Cordis Corp.

    634 F. Supp. 1242 (S.D. Miss. 1986)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Articulating "that a manufacturer suffers the threat of irreparable injury whenever a salesman opts to transfer his portion of the goodwill to another company."

    to enforce a non-competition agreement. Thames v. Davis Goulet Ins. Co., 420 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Miss. 1982) (emphasis omitted). The court carefully scrutinizes the particular circumstances of each case to maintain a reasonable balance between "unfair competition by an ex-employee [and] unreasonable oppression by an employer."

  5. Dunn v. AgriSompo N. Am.

    Civil Action 4:21-cv-136-JMV (N.D. Miss. Sep. 18, 2023)

    ” Hall, Jennifer, 5 MS Prac. Encyclopedia MS Law §43:46 (3d ed.) (quoting Thames v. Davis & Goulet Ins., Inc., 420 So.3d 1041, 1043)). Nevertheless, our courts recognize that where the purpose of such a provision is to prevent an employee of a company, who has serviced its clients or customers and been provided with product information and experience as part of his employment from terminating the arrangement and poaching the former employer's customers

  6. Herring Gas Co., Inc. v. Magee

    813 F. Supp. 1239 (S.D. Miss. 1993)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating the reasonableness of the restrictive covenants without regard to contract language wherein the employees expressly acknowledged that the restrictions were reasonable

    Although Mississippi law does not favor covenants not to compete, such covenants will be enforced if the party seeking enforcement proves that they are reasonable. Thames v. Davis Goulet Ins., Inc., 420 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Miss. 1982) (quoting Texas Rd. Boring Co. of Louisiana-Mississippi v. Parker, 194 So.2d 885, 889 (Miss. 1967)).

  7. Cascio v. Cascio Invs.

    327 So. 3d 59 (Miss. 2021)   Cited 9 times

    Tex. Rd. Boring Co. of La.-Miss. v. Parker , 194 So. 2d 885, 888 (Miss. 1967) (quoting Frierson v. Sheppard Building Supply, Co. , 247 Miss. 157, 154 So. 2d 151, 156 (1963) ); Thames v. Davis & Goulet Ins., Inc ., 420 So. 2d 1041, 1043 (Miss. 1982). Only when such agreements are reasonable will they be considered valid.

  8. Field v. Lamar

    822 So. 2d 893 (Miss. 2002)   Cited 4 times

    Non-competition agreements must be reasonable on the restrictions and economic justifications. SeeThamesv. Davis Goulet Ins., Inc., 420 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Miss. 1982). Any exclusive right to impinge on a physician's autonomy and the patient's right of choice would undoubtedly undermine the public policy interests.

  9. Empiregas, Inc. of Kosciusko v. Bain

    599 So. 2d 971 (Miss. 1992)   Cited 26 times
    Refusing to enforce a noncompetition agreement that was oppressive to the terminated employee

    An equitable balancing of the rights of the employer and the employee leads us to conclude that enforcement of the agreement would have a far more oppressive effect on Bain than its non-enforcement would have on Empiregas. Moreover, as we have indicated, when an employer terminates an employee in bad faith, the terms of a non-competition agreement will not be enforced. In Thames v. Davis Goulet Insurance, Inc., 420 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Miss. 1982), we held that "this Court is committed to the general rule requiring the ex-employer in a case such as this to demonstrate to the trial court the economic justification, the reasonableness, of the restraint which is sought to be imposed." In Thames, we noted that the former employer "did not plead in its complaint any special reason or necessity why the contract should be enforced.

  10. Cooper v. Gidden

    515 So. 2d 900 (Miss. 1987)   Cited 6 times

    Cooper argues that non-competition agreements are not favored in law, and the person seeking to enforce such covenant bears the burden of proving their reasonableness. Thames v. Davis Goulet Ins., Inc., 420 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Miss. 1982). On this basis Cooper contends that the facts presented at trial, as set forth above, do not meet this reasonableness requirement.